Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-09-30

guided In this discussion by The thorough
conviction that you are defending sound
political principles, that you are main
taining the great doctrine of a strict lin
itst-on OF the powers of government, and
the protection of the individual rights
snd persona liberty of the people. And
SIS TO the general doctrine on each of
these points l an thoroughly in accord
with you, but not in their application to
the question under consideration, for l
do not believe, as to il, that they have
any just application. As TO your denial
n SUBSTANCE OF the right Of state to pass
laws prohibiting the liquor traffic, might
say whence comes the right to prohibit
the sale Of liquor On Sundays; the right
habitual drunkards; the right CT the
state to prevent the saloons from
selling liquors Without q license, the
right OF the state to compel saloon Keep
ers 70 give bond to keep orderly houses,
shows that they are not exercising q
natural right, protected by the bill of
rights, but only privilege tolerated and
licensed by the state under special re-
strictions. Independently of shy reason
swer your position by 3 reference to the
decisions of the Supreme court of the
United States and to the decisions OF the
supreme courts of many of the states,
with only the Supreme court OF Indiana
in one case holding g contrary
doctrine, and that court reversed that
opinion within year; so that now, so
far as | know or believe, the doctrine is
firmly established oy all these courts, and
is unChallenged by any, that state IN
der its police power may restrict, control
or prohibit the liquor traffic, without I'M
Justly interfering with the individual
rights or personal liberty. And the bur
den is on those who contend as you DO to
show that the decisions and opinions of
al these courts are wrong, and that they
sanction and permit the violations CT per-
sonal liberty.
l cannot quote from the opinions of
these courts without making this paper
too long for publication SIS q newspaper
article. But | will quote q single express
! sion from Judge who believe had your
| full confidence snd respect. l mean
| Chief Justice fancy. IN g case in 9TH
! Howard, p. 577, he says
eli any state deems the retail and in
ternsi traffic in ardent spirits injurious
TO lis citizens and calculated to produce
iGleness, vice and debsucbery, | see
nothing in the constitution Of the United
States to prevent it from regulating and
restraining the traffic or from prohibiting
it altogether il it thinks proper"
The real question, the one which the
people are or should be most deeply In
terested in, can be stated in this way: Is
the liquor traffic beneficial to society? Or,
is il injurious to socie'y? If benefcisl il
ought to be protected by law ana sus-
tanned by public opinion. If luxurious
10 society it ought to be controlled Grd
prohibited, Ike any other vice in the so
Ci6l system. | submit that there is nc
way 20 fairly escape this proposition III
the discussion Of this question, and thai
it lies ct the foundation Of its Con6idera.
ton, The talk about individual rights
+, and personal liberty cannot excuse crime
/ or an Injury to society, or the state, OF
lis people.
/ IL my letter Of JAY 90 l refer to thl
action Of the state ia prohibiting the car
ryinG Ct pistols, bowie knives and bras:
= knuCks, and in prohibiting every Kind O
gambling, to the prohibition by our Gre
ator To our prImogenit0rs to eat the frui
: of the forbidden tree, to the fact tina
nearly every one Of the Ten Command.
. ments were pr0hIbitorY, and to the fac
| that the great BODY If the criminal Laws .
: the United States End Of the several state
were made up Of prohibitions whIcn re
= s.ricte6 personal liberty TO show that The
fac mat 3 measure may restrict persona
liberty Is not & valid objection 10 it IN
l less it is unjusty OF unIa 1fGilY made
f AlIthese references you think ere insult
2 licient 10 sustain my position. You argu
, against the dangers OF federal Legislation
e OF the question Of prohibition in tn
/ states and against the wrong Of havin
; federal detectives and spies set upon tn
7 people. No one knows better than your
= sell that this could not occar Without
1 palpSble and fragrant violation Of til
+ constitution of the United States, and
e Is so improbable that Congress woul
= pSss such an act or that the courts wOui
=, permit its enforcement that it ought &c
$ 30 be mentioned in fair discussion c
r this question.
q &c not know what better we can &
4 or the point, and on this whole question
e than to refer them to the eulightone
4 Judgment OF the people of the present IN
J., future And TO that tribunal I appea
e Very truly your friend,